November 2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Laura Parrish, Judge.  APPEAL DISMISSED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (4 pages)

            Cole Michael Johnson appeals his convictions after pleading guilty to four charges.  OPINION HOLDS: Johnson was adequately advised of the requirement of filing a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge his guilty plea and waived this right to do so, which precludes him from challenging his pleas on appeal.  Because Johnson has not established good cause to pursue his appeal as a matter of right, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal and must dismiss it.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Jason A. Burns, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Greer, J., and Vogel, S.J.  Opinion by Vogel, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Seven Divine appeals his convictions and sentences after pleading guilty to possession of ammunition as a domestic violence offender, domestic abuse assault, and first-degree harassment.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Gregg R. Rosenbladt, Judge.  REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer, Ahlers, Badding, and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  Special Concurrence by Buller, J. Dissent by Greer, J. (25 pages)

            In a medical malpractice suit, the medical providers bring this interlocutory appeal and ask us to hold that Iowa Code chapter 668 (2020) applies to compare the fault of the medical providers with the fault of the released third-party jet ski defendants.  OPINION HOLDS: Because we find that DeMoss v. Hamilton, 644 N.W.2d 302 (Iowa 2002), lends guidance, we hold chapter 668 does not apply to these facts.  We reverse and remand the district court’s decision.  SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: Because I believe DeMoss v. Hamilton, 644 N.W.2d 302 (Iowa 2002) strongly nudges us to reverse, and the supreme court has not yet adopted section 35 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, I specially concur.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectively dissent from the majority opinion because I do not think DeMoss prohibits what the medical providers seek to accomplish, thus we need not extend or overrule its holding or even engage in that exercise.  I disagree with the majority finding that this malpractice action is a separate “claim” and so would find that Iowa Code chapter 668 applies here.  And under the reasoning of Jahn and section 35 of the Restatement (Third), I would apply those evolving legal concepts so that the appropriate defendant, including the released party, is responsible for its share of the enhanced injury.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Franklin County, Rustin T. Davenport, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Badding, J.  (5 pages)

            David Baugh appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief.  He contends that the prosecutor’s subsequent criminal conviction for sexual abuse casts doubt on to the prosecutor’s actions in his own case.  Baugh does not claim innocence but argues instead that the plea negotiations were tainted by the prosecutor’s “unclean hands.”  OPINION HOLDS: Baugh’s claim fails because he has not shown how the prosecutor’s conduct was material to his decision to plead guilty.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of his postconviction-relief application.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Elizabeth Dupuich, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.  Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Mullins, S.J.  Opinion by Mullins, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Carlos Hivento appeals his sentence for third-degree sexual abuse, arguing the district court abused its discretion by imposing a consecutive term of imprisonment without adequate reasons and by ordering that Hivento complete sex-offender treatment while incarcerated.  OPINION HOLDS: We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to impose a consecutive sentence.  However, we agree with both parties that the court lacked statutory authority to order sex-offender treatment.  We vacate that part of Hivento’s sentence and remand for entry of a corrected sentencing order.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wright County, Gregg R. Rosenbladt and Rustin Davenport, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher, Chicchelly, Langholz, and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  Dissent by Sandy, J.  (25 pages)

            Rickie Withers Sr. appeals his convictions and sentences for four counts of second-degree sexual abuse and three counts of third-degree sexual abuse.  Withers challenges the district court’s decision to allow the guardian ad litem to sit next to a child witness during the child’s testimony; claims the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to continue when the prosecutor “provided late notice of additional witnesses and evidence”; and argues the court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences without giving appropriate consideration to “his age and medical conditions.”  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review of the claims properly before us, we affirm Withers’ convictions and sentences.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I would hold the district court abused its discretion by denying Withers’ motion to continue trial and prejudiced him.  I therefore respectfully dissent.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Linda M. Fangman, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Telleen, S.J.  Opinion by Telleen, S.J.  (7 pages)

            Jason Hocking appeals his conviction for robbery in the first degree, arguing insufficient evidence supported his conviction.  OPINION HOLDS: Sufficient evidence was presented to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Hocking committed robbery in the first degree, and we thus affirm his conviction.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (7 pages)

            Reynolds appeals the denial of his postconviction-relief application from two convictions for lascivious acts with a child.  He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s denial of relief because Reynolds failed to preserve error for his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and he failed to prove actual innocence.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Nelmark and Samantha Gronewald, Judges.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Chicchelly, J.  (6 pages)

            Nicolas Aragon Jr. and Regina Ward appeal a grant of summary judgment for the defendants.  They allege the district court erred in dismissing (1) their negligence claim because Aragon was a trespasser and (2) the breach-of-contract claim because the plaintiffs did not have third-party beneficiary rights.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the record demonstrates Aragon was a trespasser and the plaintiffs did not have third-party beneficiary rights, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Melissa Anderson-Seeber, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (7 pages)

            An applicant for postconviction relief appeals the denial of relief.  OPINION HOLDS: Finding the alleged breaches of duty did not prejudice the applicant, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, Jennifer Miller, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard at oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  Dissent by Tabor, C.J.  (19 pages)

            Thirteen property owners in the City of Jefferson appeal the district court’s dismissal of their petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the city council’s decision to rezone a parcel of land.  They argue that the court erred in holding that their petition failed to plead sufficient facts showing their standing to challenge the rezoning decision and that it abused its discretion in not letting them amend their petition to allege more facts to cure any deficiency.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of standing because the mere ownership of property in the city—none of which was alleged to be near the rezoned property—does not show a specific personal or legal interest that has been or is imminently likely to be harmed by the rezoning decision.  And the property owners’ second argument—that the court should have let them amend their petition—is not preserved for our review.  They did not raise this issue to the district court before its dismissal ruling by making a written or oral motion for leave to amend—suggesting at oral argument that they “could amend” the petition “if the Court wishes” is not a motion.  What’s more, they could have filed an amended petition—without needing the court’s permission—at any time in the two months between the city moving to dismiss and the court’s dismissal ruling.  But they chose not to do so.  And asking the court to reconsider its dismissal order to permit an amended petition is too late to raise this new issue.  DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I believe the property owners made a contingent request for leave to amend, and so the district court erred in dismissing the petition.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Eric J. Nelson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered without oral arguments by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, P.J.  (6 pages)

            Richard Siemer appeals from the summary dismissal of his second application for postconviction relief.  He asserts that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether phone records constitute a new ground of fact that could not have been raised within three years of his conviction; the statute of limitations should be tolled by the relation-back doctrine established in Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866 (Iowa 2018); and the 2019 amendment to Iowa Code section 822.3 violates both the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the federal and Iowa constitutions.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of Siemer’s second application for postconviction relief.